 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) If I'm flamed for fanning the flames, this is what I'd like to be flamed for. I'm gonna psuedo "Me too" on Richard's comments, (though that may hurt you [Eric], as well. You, (NELUG,) are not the only LUG in the country. Shiri asked if we, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Open discussion is one thing, and I don't think that would have bothered Eric. It's the general aggressive tone people have taken with us that he takes issue with. How closely have you been following this? (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) I agree, the overly aggressive discussion is close to purposeless (other than allowing people to blow off steam). One thing which was definitely a problem was the small number of contributors originally. I'm glad to see that there is some more (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Can you back this assertion up with a quotation from me showing that I feel this way? I don't think you'll find you can. eric (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Fairly closely. I agreee, the aggressive name-calling is always unjust and without merit. What I find distasteful is, every close of a post from Eric is, (please don't knitpick my quote, as it is an amalgam of many of his posts) "We should (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) No Eric, I don't think that I should go back and root out everything you said and compile it here for you (out of context mind you, for which you would assuridly find fault with). Perhaps you don't uncomfortable. Perhaps you just don't feel (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) So, in other words, you can't support it. That's fine. I just want you to be aware of it. (...) Can you show me a quote where I told anyone not to talk about it? I don't think so, again. I have never said that people shouldn't talk about it. I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Because I think it's an important issue, and NELUG should hash it out in person, with the interested parties (ie, people who are actually in the club and attend meetings) having a say. (...) Great. You can have all the open discussion you (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) <snip> I will stress again, however, that the opinions of non-NELUG members (...) nor (...) Ok. Let's go back to the original poster. SHE, (not you, or anyone else) solicited the opinions of others. I by no means meant to actually solicit your (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) When people start responding to NELUG in the way that they have - calling the group 'exclusionary', 'arrogant jerks', and all of the other insults that have been flung at the group - how could he *not* feel attacked? (...) That's easy, and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) If I were him, I wouldn't want to discuss it in this forum either. We've already seen the results of that with people's responses to Matt Miller. The responses ranged from incredulous to abusive, but nobody seemed willing to try to listen and (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) your (...) do (...) The last time I checked a dictionary, the definition of exclutionary was something or some one that excludes something from its boundaries or grouping. I'm not saying anyone is arrogant. I actually respect NELUG's right to (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Because 'judging' people on a case-by-case basis is not only unequal treatment, but it is open to abuse. Perhaps NELUG will consider another system, but until they do have their meeting, your question can only be rhetorical. If any LUG started (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) treatment, (...) being (...) But isn't it unfair to keep someone out, who most every one agrees is a mature person just so in the future we don't have to "deal" with the issue later? Shiri should be judged by her merits as a person alone, and (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) But when we say we will discuss it at a meeting, you say we are attempting to stop people from talking about it. I really can't understand what it is you're trying to say. I am trying very hard because, believe it or not, I do want to. But you (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) because (...) I (...) a (...) This is all well and good. Your decicions, at your meet, at your club. I do not contridict myself. You keep asking to let it lie, (which you can ASK all you want,) but the ORIGINAL poster(Shiri) asked for a public (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) This is off-topic in this group -- it would be better to move it to lugnet.org.us. This is, after all, the newsgroup/mailing list *for* NELUG. If you mean it to be a discussion for people other than NELUG, it's better placed somewhere else. (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| | | | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) Ah, I see. It's a simple misunderstanding. I don't care if you discuss this all over Lugnet, by all means, Shiri asked you to, go ahead. But when you post things like this statement: (...) to lugnet.org.us.nelug (in (URL) with no crossposting, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
| |
